Mini Normal 1719 - Flavorless Fun! [Game Over!]

[Garmr]

Two or three.people

[Dwlee99]

You don't get it. :c

[Garmr]

I really don't

[Dwlee99]

No, you've made specific claims that meanmelter did things, that he has explicitly denied doing in his 1044. And then you brushed it all aside. Even though there are points of your argument that I agree with, I can't understand why you would have to blatantly spin the facts and exaggerate to better make your case. That's not a townie thing to do.

I love how you accuse me of wall-derping when you glossed over the bulk of what I wrote in 1050. I guess you still have nothing to say about the scum-read you conveniently gave me D2 (530) right after I made a post condemning your D1 quickhammer (remember deflecting that with a "well what about my other reads"?). How you hadn't said a word about me beforehand, and haven't touched that scumread with a 10-foot pole since? I guess you have nothing to say regarding your THIRD blatantly anti-town 'action in this game? Your role-fishing that was completely misguided, unsolicited, and has caused someone to prematurely claim not-mason, which ONLY benefits scum?

Says you outed a possible mason candidate for scum to target.

Look, herrcombs, you're missing it. I'm claiming "not" mason. *wink wink*

I'm "not a mason".

*winks a few more times*

Further implying I'm "not a mason"

So you believe she is town?

Until another power role is claimed yeah unless your going to tell me you have results proving her guilt which judging by your winking you do,

You say I have a guilty on her.

Wut. That's not what my winking means at all. I'm claiming "not mason".

So atm you believe that the setup is:
2 masons
Dr
BP
Scum strongman.
Am I understanding correctly? So that means lalendra is town?

I can't have a guilty cause I'm "not a mason."

Also was hoping you had a guilty on her would of made me the happiest chap.

Nope. lol

Remember, I'm not a mason.

I still don't have a guilty cause I'm not a mason.

Your confusing me dwells because masons come in twos or unlikey threes so yeh.

Dude, I already told you. I'm

NOT

a mason.

I'M NOT A MASON!!!one11!!!!1!!

[Garmr]

So your saying there's three masons

[Dwlee99]

When did I say that. o3o

[Dwlee99]

The answer is no, btw.

[Garmr]

Your confusing the fuck out me

[Garmr]

Let's stay on topic why means scum

[Hieirama]

What the heck was that, Dwlee...?
Are you claiming something other than VT?

I really want Hieirama to cast a vote.

Ookay.
VOTE: Meanmelter
Didn't feel that good about his tunnel, and I did agree with Garmr that there was a bit of misrep in his case. Also, the point Dwlee made about the refusing the defense accusations.

A quick diversion -- I'm not a fan of Hieirama's 1002 for the same reason I've not been a fan of most of her play so far. So much vague language, so little desire to reread anything or analyze what has transpired in the game. I wanted real answers to my questions in 984, not just fencesitting without having reread the game and without indicating a desire to figure out the game to any depth. I can't take your reads seriously, Hieirama, if you just make posts like 955 and 983 without substantiation, and continue not to substantiate them after being pressured.

If I have an opinion, I'll say it. If I don't have evidence to back it up, I'll still say it anyway. Don't need evidence to have an opinion and share it... Though it does help people take you more seriously, I guess.

[Dwlee99]

WIFOM Hieriama, WIFOM.

I am still "not" a mason.

[Garmr]

well not a mason vote mean melter.

[Dwlee99]

I want the meanmelter's response to my post~

[Garmr]

@dwelle

Alrighty, I was gone most of the weekend but I'm catching up now. Wall incoming

Garmr reads the emerging Haschel Cedricson wagon as a scum-counter wagon. I can see town-Garmr thinking this:

tbf, I think this could also come from scum trying to protect his buddy.

Garmr REALLY wants the Lalendra lynch: post 829, post 830, post 837, post 842, post 847, post 854.
This does make me feel that Garmr didn't know Haschel Cedricson was scum.

Could you explain this for me Keyser? Are you saying if Garmr and Haschel were scumbuddies, Garmr wouldn't have had an outburst like that trying to get Lala lynched? Not sure I agree.

I felt like Haschel Cedricson gave out many views/reads on behaviour of many players, but primarily focused only on Lalendra and Hieirama.
Lalendra wins a town point for being the wagon that Haschel Cedricson pushed D1/D2.
Haschel Cedricson did not vote for anyone else he'd given a negative remark on.
Interestingly, I could not find a read/opinion that Haschel Cedricson gave on Meanmelter.

I agree with these statements. I think Haschel's flip looks good for Lala and Hiei, but it makes me nervous about Meanmelter and Garmr.

I'm trying to set up a situation that will get lale killed if she's town by scum or lynched as scum or forces scum to protect a town power role to keep lale alive if she's scum

Regarding this whole thing, where Garmr tries to out the remaining mason(s), I am going like this O.O We don't know if scum have something like a roleblocker or a strongman, which is likely if Lala is actually the doc and tried to save BBT last night. Garmr gets huge scum points in my book for trying to do this against the remaining mason(s)' will, and for making it easier for scum to hunt them down by pressuring DWL to confirm/deny his role. I'm beginning to feel more strongly that Garmr is scum who's just super ballsy with his anti-town behavior. I just don't see town playing this kind of risk, lemme break it down -- If Garmr's wrong about Lalendra, then his 'plan' directly kills two PRs, one at night, and the other gets lynched the next day. Actually, if Garmr is town and felt so strongly about Lala being scum, he wouldn't bother with this whole runaround. He'd just want to lynch Lala today. That way, we would still have conftown more likely to survive until later.

I do not recall you not feeling townie agbout Keyser? You said he was null-town and that he has been under your radar, but I believe that was the last you mentioned of him. Perhaps you mean you are reassured? Especially with those last two statements who you felt are both town.

Yes, I am reassured that Keyser is likely town.

Garmr's post 973 bothers the crap out of me. It's like Garmr has a finger in each ear going "LALALA I CANT FUKING HEAR YOU" and just trying to drive his narrative home.

At this point, I do not think Meanmelter and Garmr are scum together, but I would wager that there's a scum between them.

A quick diversion -- I'm not a fan of Hieirama's 1002 for the same reason I've not been a fan of most of her play so far. So much vague language, so little desire to reread anything or analyze what has transpired in the game. I wanted real answers to my questions in 984, not just fencesitting without having reread the game and without indicating a desire to figure out the game to any depth. I can't take your reads seriously, Hieirama, if you just make posts like 955 and 983 without substantiation, and continue not to substantiate them after being pressured.

So what are your opinions on me, then?

I think that you have tunneled Garmr the entire game, and whether you are town or scum, it has left sort of a blind spot for other things that have been going on. That being said, I can see your push against Garmr as a town push. You have made several good points that I agree with, so that prompted my question to Hieirama when she said "not liking how anti-Garmr Meanmelter is being" in 983. I think there are points in your push against Garmr that appear to be misrepresented (e.g. the phrase at the end of 466 "You went from AFK one line posts to softclaiming out of the blue..." it's not clear whether you were trying to say Garmr was afk before he claimed, or rather that the style of his posts were afk-one-liners.) However, I think Garmr is totally overblowing how all of your posts are "shit" and misreps and strawmen and w/e. I think in your interactions with Garmr, Garmr looks way worse. I think Garmr complains about misreps and strawmen, all the while misrepresenting you and making strawman arguments. So I'm not liking Garmr atm.

Note to self: I should come back to myko's 1027 once I have some more time.

I think today I'd like to go with the theory that garmr and mean are the two remaining scum. It makes sense on a couple of levels.

Could you explain the levels on which this association makes sense? I'm not seeing this conclusion as readily as you are atm. Ever since meanmelter replaced in, do you think the aggression that he's shown towards Garmr is not unlikely to occur between two scum?

Reading Garmr's 1040, ok he's actually making a few decent points here. Like his point about the line from MM's 466. However (let's look at the FACT THAT WASN"T TRUE line), Garmr, you have it wrong. Your only scumreads D2 were people who were either voting you or considering it. See 530. I even called you out on this, and you sheepishly dropped your contrived scumread on me like a bad habit. Your scumread on feli D1 was AFTER he had first scumread you (see 270). Same with myko. Why does this matter? Because it looks like you're only interested in lynching people who want to kill you. Your scumhunting revolves around yourself. It looks like you're looking inward, not outward, and that is scummy.

The mafia are NOT killing people who see you as town. I do not recall BBT calling you town,

This is actually not true. BBT was pretty sure Garmr is town. Just look at his interaction with Garmr at the end of D2. And his 636, he outright said that the Garmr wagon was bad.

Holy crap this back-and-forth between Garmr and Mean is painful. It's basically Garmr going, "Mean did this," mean replies "No I didn't," then Garmr goes "Yeah you did." For the record Garmr, if you make claims about someone, the burden is on YOU to prove their validity. If you claim that Mean "says i provided no reads or anything," and he denies saying that, then it's your responsibility to show where he in fact said it. If you claim that Mean "tried to dispel my reads as only people that scum read me," and mean says he did no such thing, it is your responsibility to either show where he in fact said it, or admit that you're lying. Your 1045 just looks like you're trying to back yourself out of responsibility of claims you've made against mean. "really can't be bothered with these anwsers as they do nothing to change my points," well your points don't mean much if they're false to begin with. As scum, this makes complete sense, because you're using hyperbole to fabricate a case to get someone lynched. If you're town, it just means that you are lazy in how you throw shit around, making claims that aren't verifiable, exaggerating because you feel a certain way about a slot. I'm leaning towards the former.

VOTE: Garmr

do you think this comes from a derp town who didn't bother to read the convo between me and melta or scum?

[Dwlee99]

Herrcombs read the conversation, there is no doubt about that. I don't think that his post is scummy, can you point out what about it is?

[Keyser Söze]

I am currently still on holiday, this will have my full attention no later Thursday.

[A Simple Plan]

Vote Count 3.3

3

Garmr - mykonian, Meanmelter, herrcombs [L-2]

3

Meanmelter - Garmr, Dierfire, Hieirama [L-2]

Not Voting -

Dwlee99, Lalendra, Keyser Söze

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch.

Deadline - (expired on 2015-11-04 08:00:00)

Lalendra and mykonian have been prodded.

[Dierfire]

reading both Lalendra and Garmr as Town should open up a whole host of questions as to where the Mafia are distributed on those wagons, but Hieirama ducks that analysis.

I'm not that into vc analysis particularly.
I think they're both Town and I think we've got scum hiding in some common townreads.
The NK makes me more suspicious of this, actually.

@Dier

Common Townreads; Dwlee, Herr, Keyser.
It unsettles me that it seems like scum haven't tried targeting them yet.

p.s. not liking how anti-Garmr Meanmelter is being

VOTE: Meanmelter
Didn't feel that good about his tunnel, and I did agree with Garmr that there was a bit of misrep in his case. Also, the point Dwlee made about the refusing the defense accusations.

I actually like this last post from Hieirama because it finally has some continuity.

[mykonian]

yeah hi, I recieved a prod.

This is an interesting situation that I'm perfectly happy watching unfold.

[Garmr]

Herrcombs read the conversation, there is no doubt about that. I don't think that his post is scummy, can you point out what about it is?

I don't think he read my arguments with mean melter as his quick to label me as saying no you didn't when I have facts and actually got the point that mean melter was soft defending hascheil which he denied which you guys acknowledge he did. Thus means at most he did a quick glance through what was actually written. I want to know if you think that's scum pretending to do a quick glance or town because it's been pointed out I do make some fair point in posts even through not everyone agrees with all of them.

[Dwlee99]

I think herrcombs wants you to quote posts and provide more evidence about some of the things. When did herrcombs comment on meanmelter's soft defending of haschel, though?

[Garmr]

@dwelle

If you claim that Mean "tried to dispel my reads as only people that scum read me," and mean says he did no such thing, it is your responsibility to either show where he in fact said it, or admit that you're lying. Your 1045 just looks like you're trying to back yourself out of responsibility of claims you've made against mean. "really can't be bothered with these anwsers as they do nothing to change my points," well your points don't mean much if they're false to begin with. As scum, this makes complete sense, because you're using hyperbole to fabricate a case to get someone lynched. If you're town, it just means that you are lazy in how you throw shit around, making claims that aren't verifiable, exaggerating because you feel a certain way about a slot. I'm leaning towards the former.

VOTE: Garmr

this is him saying my points are all shit when it's obvious that when another person (soon to be more than one) agrees with me that there not one point that's right. It means he either didn't read everything correctly, isn't really good player or scum. Because I don't see how it's possible to come to that conclusion when other players are agreeing with me.

[Dwlee99]

He didn't mention anywhere within that post about mean's soft-defense of haschel. In that post he is telling you to find proof for your claims.

[Garmr]

my claims have enough proof through -_-

[Dwlee99]

That's not what I asked for though, garmr.
Look:

@dwelle


-long herrcombs post snipped-


do you think this comes from a derp town who didn't bother to read the convo between me and melta or scum?

Derp town or scum because they didn't read the conversation.

Herrcombs read the conversation, there is no doubt about that. I don't think that his post is scummy, can you point out what about it is?

Read it, I don't think it's scummy, what about it is?

Herrcombs read the conversation, there is no doubt about that. I don't think that his post is scummy, can you point out what about it is?

I don't think he read my arguments with mean melter as his quick to label me as saying no you didn't when I have facts and actually got the point that mean melter was soft defending hascheil which he denied which you guys acknowledge he did. Thus means at most he did a quick glance through what was actually written. I want to know if you think that's scum pretending to do a quick glance or town because it's been pointed out I do make some fair point in posts even through not everyone agrees with all of them.

I think herrcombs wants you to quote posts and provide more evidence about some of the things. When did herrcombs comment on meanmelter's soft defending of haschel, though?

@dwelle

If you claim that Mean "tried to dispel my reads as only people that scum read me," and mean says he did no such thing, it is your responsibility to either show where he in fact said it, or admit that you're lying. Your 1045 just looks like you're trying to back yourself out of responsibility of claims you've made against mean. "really can't be bothered with these anwsers as they do nothing to change my points," well your points don't mean much if they're false to begin with. As scum, this makes complete sense, because you're using hyperbole to fabricate a case to get someone lynched. If you're town, it just means that you are lazy in how you throw shit around, making claims that aren't verifiable, exaggerating because you feel a certain way about a slot. I'm leaning towards the former.

VOTE: Garmr

this is him saying my points are all shit when it's obvious that when another person (soon to be more than one) agrees with me that there not one point that's right. It means he either didn't read everything correctly, isn't really good player or scum. Because I don't see how it's possible to come to that conclusion when other players are agreeing with me.

I asked about where he commented on mean's soft-defense of Haschel and you responded with this post which doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the soft-defense of haschel.

He didn't mention anywhere within that post about mean's soft-defense of haschel. In that post he is telling you to find proof for your claims.

my claims have enough proof through -_-

So yea. I asked about herrcomb's comment on mean's soft defense of haschel and you responded with that.